Talk:Dutch declension

Dutch declensions???

I'm a native speaker of Dutch. The declensions proposed here are archaic or even wrong nowadays! Normally we do NOT use cases (except for certain pronouns, like English), although in certain expressions (idiomatic expressions) part of the old case system is retained, - e.g. 's morgens (in the morning) (des morgens sounds incredibly archaic) - or as style - e.g. ten tonele verschijnen (≡ op het toneel verschijnen) (appear on stage). There is no nominative-accusative opposition at all.

Furthermore, I found a locative case for pronouns. I wouldn't even (like everyone) be able to UNDERSTAND the forms suggested here.

This article needs extensive cleanup, as to let it reflect the Dutch used in 2006. --JorisvS 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE, SCAVANGER, BUT IT IS RUDE JUST DELETING MY COMMENT! I suggest that you learn Dutch first.

please culd you tell me what this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_declension_system 62.214.220.101 (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a POV fork of this article. Archaic Dutch declension is/was another one, and I believe the same user who is responsible for this has created similar articles for the English language. The material offered looks like the theoretical outcome of a rigid, highly archaizing declension system, but has little to do with actual practice. Iblardi (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Dutch, and having studied the history of Dutch grammar I agree with JorisvS above. This article is a total bloody joke. There are so many inaccuracies in it it should just be trashed. It's a total mess, I can't make any logic or sense out of it at all. If you want to do an article on Dutch declension it needs to be a diachronic one tracing how the system totally disappeared (which the article archaic dutch declension already does). The historical overview section does this to some extent but the tables are very inaccurate (and not referenced). The case system: usage section is just something created ex nihilo: it reads as if this whole crazy declension system were still in use today which is definitely not the case. I don't think there is a single Dutch speaker alive who would actually construct ridiculous sounding sentences such as "ik heb vandaag meinen vriend (should actually be "mijnen vriende" if you're going to invoke the dative) wat geld geleend" or "ik wou dat het (ref. to dat meisje) mijn vriendin was". This article reads like it was written by that subculture of prescriptive grammarians who still even today pine for the long deceased and buried Dutch case system to be resurrected. This article should just be deleted, it's total nonsense. Duprie37 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The article used to be even more nonsensical before we tried to normalize it to some extent. As far as I am concerned the outdated/inaccurate examples can be removed. Those are relicts of the older version, which were kept as a sort of compromise. The diachronous overview was originally set up (by me) to prevent any wrong conclusions being drawn from some of the more archaic examples. As it is sourced, I would protest against simply removing it. Iblardi (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of Dutch, and I speak a bit of Oudnederlands (Old Dutch). In Oudnederlands there is used a fifth case, named the locative case. Why isn't this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.118.134 (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker of Dutch living in Belgium I agree with those above who say that the article as it currently stands is absurd. I do admit that the case system is still available to create new expressions, but only in an extremely limited way, such as in the fanciful title of Dimitri Verhulst's novel De Helaasheid Der Dingen (The Alasness of Things). I would add that the "Belgian" forms that the author has identified are Tussentaal or dialect usages and are never used in formal speech. I have friends who say "ne" and "ene" on Facebook, but you would never hear those words from a TV newsreader. My understanding is that these words are also used in colloquial speech in North Brabant, but someone more familiar with dialects in the Netherlands may want to correct me on this.

I actually came here hoping to find information on why the Dutch case system collapsed. This would make a fascinating article because the circumstances appear on the surface to have been very different to those that accompanied the collapse of the English case system. 213.49.247.208 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

REWRITE

This page is a laugh and a shame. Is this supposed to be Dutch declension? This page is simply an examply how Dutch would look like with a declension system (as in a modern one) I will rewrite this article completely in a couple of days. I'm afraid only bits of this page will be saved as examples of complex or poetic use of the Dutch language. To whoever wrote this, I hope you're not Dutch. Rex 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Finally! I wish I knew more Dutch to contribute. It's good to see it's going to be rewritten and will not mislead anyone in future. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reverts to misleading information

What's with the reverts to the page? The page written by Rex Germanus is factually correct. Now it's not about Dutch we're speaking today anymore. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Really matt I wish I knew, some anynymous IP keeps reverting this page to archaic and incorrect grammar. This IP never responds to edit summaries ... its just very weird.Rex 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that this page isn't so factual correct at all. Added the sign that this page is lacking (a lot of) references. I think we best translate the pages on http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie:Grammatica

134.184.49.146 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating historical information

I understand (based on comments here and at Archaic Dutch Declension and so forth) that some are trying to incorporate outdated material about the declensions, and so forth. Is it possible to make this page incorporate historical patterns like English declension? English declension seems pretty similar to Dutch in the degree of simplicity and the fact it came from a more complicated pattern. There's some difficulty, as explained at Talk:Archaic Dutch Declension, that the history of Dutch makes it hard to pinpoint clearly the declension system used at specific times. That author did provide some references for older declension patterns; Archaic Dutch Declension is not referenced and apparently erroneous (or at least misleading). Rigadoun (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree; the article had no clear "mission statement", so to say. I've been doing a partial rewrite over the last couple of days. Hopefully, at this point, the article is somewhat less confusing and more informative. Iblardi 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

The view of this article does not coincide with Dutch sources (e.g. Dutch Wikipedia)

What do you mean? There is no corresponding page on Dutch Wikipedia. Why exactly did you place the POV-tag? Can you be more explicit? Iblardi 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch wikipedia is not a definitive source. period. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does not reflect in any words the views described on the Dutch Wikipedia. It seems to me, that some is wishing cases disappeared from Dutch, although this is certainly not the case. I demand this article be reviewed, so that it reflects the views of the Dutch Wikipedia.

Well, instead of replacing the entire article you might just want to discuss those parts that you don't agree with. That would be a more constructive approach. Iblardi 13:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And instead of agreeing with the views of Dutch wikipedia, try agreeing with the views of more reliable sources. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (?!), if there be one place where noone speaks Dutch, it would be Dutch wikipedia?! If you want to buy bread, never go to the baker's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.39.64.38 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about speaking Dutch, it is about sourcing one's claims. Anyone can claim anything on any language's Wikipedia. This does not make it a fact per se. Iblardi 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Het

Speaking of Dutch declension, how in the world did the neuter definite article become "het" from "dat, des, den, die"? Komitsuki (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dat did not become het but was replaced by it in its function as a definite article. According to De Vries & De Tollenaere, het was originally a personal pronoun it (cognate to Latin id) to which an h was added after the analogy of hij. Both dat and het had a weak form 't, and this ultimately led to the replacement of the former by the latter. Iblardi (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"It has retained some vestiges of the original case system, more so than English,"

It seems to me that Dutch hasn't retained anymore of the original case system than English. I'll remove this part of the sentence if no-one objects. Glanhawr (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has. There are hundreds and perhaps even thousands of fixed expressions that basically still use the accusative or dative, like "van harte", "in dezen", "in goeden doen", "sinterklaas", "in den beginne", etc. For some more examples, see: [1] On top, Dutch still has a genitive, like "werk des duivels", "de dingen des levens", "voortgang der werken", "woordenboek der Nederlandse taal", "orde der geneesheren", "vrouw des huizes", "zeventiger jaren", etc. Despite the rare use of the genitive and its archaic/dramatic or formal undertone, the genitive is still grammatically correct, widely understood and is still being employed. English clearly does not have a comparable list of set expressions and clearly does not have a genitive anymore. ScalaDiSeta (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This becomes even more clear when looking at certain dialects where some phrases and words also still make usage of certain cases.62.238.182.126 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it has been already said but almost all this page is simply ridiculous

It should be stated from the beginning that except in few fixed expressions no one speaks like this at all in Dutch and these are old/outdated ways of speaking. Diminutives are still in use, indeed. Cdrk 01:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous author, possibly the same who wrote Archaic Dutch Declension, had done a massive OR-based revision earlier this year (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_declension&diff=534388619&oldid=511592010). I reverted to the version of 9 September 2012. Iblardi (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I have rewritten large parts of Archaic Dutch declension. From what I can see, this page is really just a historical overview now. It might have a place in that article, but I'm not sure. We could also try to merge it into History of Dutch. CodeCat (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)